columbia passenger regional airport demand analysis
TRANSCRIPT
PASSENGER
DEMAND
ANALYSIS
618-656-2848
COLUMBIA
REGIONAL AIRPORT
Year Ended December 31, 2017
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Introduction…………………………………………….....2
Objectives…………………………………………............................3
Methodology………………………………………………………….. 3
Section 2. Executive Summary……………………………………..4
Section 3. Airport Use……………………………………………….. 6
Airport Catchment Area………………………………………………6
Air Service…………………………………………………………......7
Onboard Passengers and Population Trend……………………… 7
Load Factor, Available Seats and Passengers …………………...8
Airport Use …………………………………………………………....9
Airport Use By Community …………………………………………10
Section 4. True Market……………………………………………...11
True Market Estimate ………………………………………………11
Top 25 True Market Destinations …………………………………12
Originating Airport For The Top 25 Domestic Destinations….....13
Top 10 Domestic Destinations By Originating Airport…………...14
Originating Airport For The Top 15 International Destinations…15
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Geographic Regions…...16
Regional Distribution of Travelers…………………………………17
Distribution of International Travel………………………………...18
Section 5. Airlines………………………………………………….....19
Airlines Used at COU………………………........................... 19
Airlines Used at STL.……………………………......................... 20
Airlines Used at MCI.……………………………......................... 21
Airlines Used at Diverting Airports...……………......................... 22
Section 6. Factors Affecting Air Service Demand and
Retention………………………………………………………....23
Passenger Activity Comparison..…………………………………. 23
Airfares….……………………………………………………...........24
Nonstop Service Availability………………..………………………26
Quality of Air Service at Competing Airports…………………..…27
Retention Rate Sensitivity………………..………………………...28
Section 7. Situation Analysis………………………………………29
Appendix A. Top 50 True Markets……………………………...... 31
Appendix B. Glossary…………….…………………………….......33
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 2
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Capacity restraint has been a major focus in the industry over the last 10 years and has left
communities in the position of competing for scarce resources. Stronger profitability and fleet
transitions to larger aircraft over the past two years provided a moderate uptick in seat capacity,
but, in 2017, as fuel prices and labor costs began to increase, there was a renewed commitment by
many airlines on capacity discipline moving forward. Given the limited number of airlines to work
with, in many cases there may be only one potentially viable service provider. With airlines primarily
focused on major markets, smaller markets are generally in the position of having to be more
aggressive to maintain/improve existing service or attain new service.
This places the responsibility on airports to monitor their market and be proactive with their ongoing
air service development efforts, especially when performance issues are noted. When service
improvements or new service is sought, it is important that airports and communities know and
understand their market. The Passenger Demand Analysis is a critical tool to help communities
understand their market. It provides objective air traveler data, compiled from industry accepted
sources using standard methodologies. Accordingly, airlines accept data included in the Passenger
Demand Analysis as a credible basis for air service forecasts. This report reviews scheduled
commercial air service potential and does not include information on general aviation activity.
he airline industry, like other
vibrant sectors of the US
economy, continues to evolve.
Over the last four years, the US airline
industry has shown record profits driven by
industry consolidation, capacity discipline,
low fuel prices and continued fleet renewal.
However, the industry continues to be
dependent on long lead time resources
such as facility and aircraft availability and
a workforce whose rules inherently impact
the ability for airlines to react quickly to
market opportunities.
T
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 3
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the Passenger Demand Analysis is to develop information on the travel patterns of local
airline passengers who reside in the Columbia Regional Airport (COU) catchment area. The report provides
an understanding of the COU situation, formulates strategies for improvement and includes:
• The originating airports used by air travelers
• Diversion of airline passenger traffic to competing airports
• An estimate of total airline passengers in the catchment area and related destinations
• Airlines used by local air travelers
• Average airfares by origin and destination airport
• Service levels at COU and competing airports
• An assessment of the air service situation at COU
METHODOLOGY
The Passenger Demand Analysis combines Airline Reporting Corporation
(ARC) ticketed data and US Department of Transportation (DOT) airline data
to provide a comprehensive overview of the air travel market. For the
purposes of this study, ARC data includes tickets purchased via online travel
agencies by passengers in the COU catchment area (Exhibit 3.1, page 6). It
does not capture tickets issued directly by airline Web sites (e.g.,
www.aa.com, www.united.com) or directly through airline reservation offices.
The data used include tickets for the zip codes in the catchment area, NOT
all tickets. As a result, ARC data represents a sample to measure the air
travel habits of catchment area air travelers.
Online travel agency data (e.g. Expedia, Orbitz and Travelocity) is reported
by the customer zip code used to purchase the ticket. Although limitations
exist, ARC data accurately portrays the airline ticket purchasing habits of a
large cross-section of catchment area travelers, making the data useful to
both airports and airlines. Adjustments were made for Allegiant Air, Frontier
Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Spirit Airlines since those airlines do not
process tickets through ARC. A total of 20,910 ARC tickets for the year
ended December 31, 2017, were used in this analysis.
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 4
AIRLINE TICKETS/
CATCHMENT AREA
The Passenger Demand Analysis includes
20,910 ARC tickets from the catchment area for
the year ended December 31, 2017. The
catchment area has an estimated population of
512,526 in 114 zip codes. In addition to ARC
data, Diio Mi origin and destination and schedule
data are used throughout the report. Adjustments
were made for Allegiant Air, Frontier Airlines,
Southwest Airlines and Spirit Airlines.
DEPARTURES AND AVAILABLE SEATS
American Airlines and United Airlines served
COU during the year ended December 31, 2017.
American and United each provided service to
two destinations. United commenced service at
COU in August 2017.
TRUE MARKET
The COU true market is estimated at 729,961
annual origin and destination passengers.
Domestic travelers accounted for 655,088 of the
total true market (90 percent). International
travelers made up the remaining 74,873
passengers (10 percent).
AIRPORT USE
Twenty-three percent of catchment area travelers
used COU, while 47 percent diverted to St. Louis
Lambert International Airport (STL), 28 percent to
Kansas City International Airport (MCI), 1 percent
to Springfield-Branson National Airport (SGF) and
1 percent to Chicago O’Hare International Airport
(ORD). Twenty-three percent of domestic
travelers and 17 percent of international travelers
used COU.
DESTINATIONS
Fifty-seven percent of travelers, or 416,365
passengers, were destined to or from one of the
top 25 markets. Dallas-Fort Worth was the
number one destination with 4.4 percent of
passengers. COU retained 74 percent of
passengers to Dallas-Fort Worth. The next
largest markets were Denver, Washington-
National, Phoenix-Sky Harbor and ORD. COU
had service to three of its top five destinations.
For international destinations, Cancun, Mexico,
was the largest market, with a retention of 5
percent. London-Heathrow, United Kingdom, and
San Jose del Cabo, Mexico, were the second and
third largest international destinations from COU.
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL
Nineteen percent of travelers were traveling to
the West region, a total of 141,910 travelers,
followed by the Southeast region also with 19
percent. The highest retention occurred in the
Southwest region at 42 percent, while the lowest
retention occurred to/from Alaska at 12 percent.
Of the international travelers, the top three
international regions were Mexico and Central
America, Europe, and Asia, with shares of 26, 23
and 21 percent, respectively.
AIRLINES USED
Of passengers using COU (based on US DOT
data), American served 82 percent of the market
followed by United (17 percent) and other carriers
(1 percent). When passengers divert to alternate
airports (based on ARC data), the top airlines
used were Southwest (45 percent), American (23
percent), Delta Air Lines (16 percent), United (11
percent), Alaska Airlines (3 percent), Frontier (1
percent), Allegiant (1 percent), Spirit (less than 1
percent) and other airlines with less than 1
percent.
SECTION 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 5
PASSENGER ACTIVITY
From year ended December 31, 2008, through
year ended December 31, 2017, COU domestic
origin and destination passengers (as reported by
the airlines to the US DOT) increased at a
compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24.7
percent. Passengers at MCI and SGF increased
at a 2.6 and 0.4 percent CAGR, respectively.
Comparatively, passengers at STL were flat
during the 10-year period.
DOMESTIC AIRFARES
For the year ended December 31, 2017, the one-
way average domestic airfare for COU was $221.
The average fares at COU were $2 higher than
SGF, $47 higher than STL and $58 higher than
MCI. In individual markets, COU had the highest
fare to 23 of the top 25 destinations when
compared to STL and MCI.
AVERAGE FARE TREND
From year ended December 31, 2008, through
year ended December 31, 2017, the average
domestic airfare for COU increased at a CAGR of
3.3 percent, while airfares increased at STL by
1.9 percent, at MCI by 1.6 percent and at SGF by
0.6 percent.
NONSTOP SERVICE
In October 2017, COU offered nonstop service to
three top 25 destinations with 49 weekly
departures. STL offered service to 24 of the top
25 markets on 919 weekly departures, and MCI
offered service to 23 of the top 25 markets on
717 weekly departures. SGF had the least
number of options for diverting airports, with just
seven of the top 25 markets served on 172
weekly departures.
AIR SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES
COU is one of the great success stories of the
Essential Air Service (EAS) program, having
gone from subsidized service with just 10,000
annual passengers a decade ago, to
unsubsidized service on two airlines to three
different hubs and nearly 200,000 annual
passengers. While the market continues to grow
and absorb the capacity added by United,
attention should be given to both airlines. For the
fall of 2017 and winter of 2018, load factors to
Dallas-Fort Worth and ORD were down
year-over-year. While American’s load factors
were clearly impacted by the new capacity,
American has already added the third frequency
to both Dallas and ORD and upgraded service to
primarily Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ)-900 and
CRJ-700 equipment going forward. As a result,
American currently shows an additional 50
percent increase in seats for the first quarter of
2019. Continued aggressive marketing will be
required to help support the rapid growth in
capacity, particularly in the slower winter period.
Due to the relatively weak load factors since
United’s startup and American’s additional
capacity, it is unlikely that new hub destinations
could be supported at COU in the near term. It is
important for the airport to fully absorb the
increased number of seats available in the
marketplace and re-gain load factors in the upper
70s or 80s. Once the market has fully absorbed
these extra seats, additional frequency on United
to Denver should be a priority, as it will greatly
increase the number of connecting opportunities
for westbound passengers.
New potential service to traditional legacy hubs is
likely limited to the southeastern US, such as
Charlotte or Atlanta. The addition of a low-cost
leisure airline, such as Allegiant Air or Sun
Country, to COU would also help to round out its
product offerings for the catchment area.
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 6
SECTION 3. AIRPORT USE
AIRPORT CATCHMENT AREA
An airport catchment area, or service area, is a
geographic area surrounding an airport where it
can reasonably expect to draw passenger traffic
and is representative of the local market. The
catchment area contains the population of
travelers who should use COU considering the
drive time from the catchment area to competing
airports. This population of travelers is COU's
focus market for air service improvements and
represents the majority of travelers using the local
airport.
Exhibit 3.1 identifies the COU catchment area. It
is comprised of 114 zip codes within the US with
an estimated population of 512,526 in 2017
(source: US Census Bureau, Woods & Poole
Economics, Inc.).
o understand airport use, it is important to understand the relative size of the catchment
area, current air service and passenger activity. COU's use was determined using
year ended December 31, 2017, ARC data for the zip codes from the catchment area.TEXHIBIT 3.1 COU CATCHMENT AREA
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 7
Exhibit 3.2 plots COU's onboard passengers against population trends for the year ended December 31, 2008, to December
31, 2017. The Columbia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was used as a surrogate for the growth trend of the catchment
area population. Over the 10-year period, the population grew from 155,572 to 176,594, increasing at a CAGR of 1.4 percent.
During that same 10-year period, onboard passengers grew at a CAGR of 25.6 percent, from 10,572 to 82,231.
AIR SERVICE
Catchment area airport use is affected by a variety of factors including: destinations offered, flight frequency, available seats,
type of aircraft, airfares and distance to a competing airport. Table 3.1 provides COU's total departures by month for the year
ended December 31, 2017. During this time, COU had service by two airlines to three destinations. American Airlines served
COU during the entire period, with nonstop service to their Dallas-Fort Worth and ORD hubs. United Airlines began service at
COU in August 2017 with service to ORD and Denver.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Po
pu
lati
on
On
bo
ard
Pa
ss
en
ge
rs
Onboard Passengers MSA Population
Source: Diio Mi; Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.
EXHIBIT 3.2 ONBOARD PASSENGERS AND POPULATION TREND
ONBOARD PASSENGERS AND POPULATION TREND
TABLE 3.1 MONTHLY DEPARTURES
DESTINATION
AIRPORT
MARKETING
CARRIER
MONTHLY DEPARTURES
2017
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Chicago, IL (ORD)American 58 52 58 55 57 56 57 59 60 62 59 61
United - - - - - - - 61 60 62 56 59
Dallas, TX (DFW) American 62 56 62 60 62 60 62 62 60 62 61 62
Denver, CO United - - - - - - - 30 30 31 30 30
Total Departures 120 108 120 115 119 116 119 212 210 217 206 212
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 8
LOAD FACTOR, AVAILABLE SEATS AND PASSENGERS
Exhibit 3.3 shows COU's available seats, onboard passengers and load factors for arrivals and departures by quarter from
first quarter 2015 through fourth quarter 2017. The peak load factor was 83 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015, while the
lowest load factor was the third quarter of 2017 at 69 percent.
Over the three-year period, available seats dropped to a low of 35,667 in the first quarter 2016 and peaked in the fourth
quarter 2017 at 72,635. The low for onboard passengers at COU through the three-year span was in the first quarter of 2016
at 27,566, and the high for onboard passengers was 53,269 in the fourth quarter of 2017.
EXHIBIT 3.3 LOAD FACTOR, AVAILABLE SEATS AND ONBOARD PASSENGERS
Growing MarketWith United Airlines
starting service in
2017, there has been
significant growth in
passengers and seats
at COU in the past
three years.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Q12015
Q22015
Q32015
Q42015
Q12016
Q22016
Q32016
Q42016
Q12017
Q22017
Q32017
Q42017
Passen
ge
rs/S
eats
Lo
ad
facto
r %
Calendar quarter
Load Factor Seats Onboards
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 9
Exhibit 3.4 shows the airports used by
catchment area travelers. An estimated 23
percent of the catchment area’s air travelers
used COU for their trips; 47 percent diverted to
STL, 28 percent to MCI, 1 percent to SGF and
1 percent to ORD.
Table 3.2 shows passengers by domestic and
international itineraries. Twenty-three percent,
or 151,603 domestic travelers, and 17 percent,
or 12,859 international travelers, used COU.
For diverting domestic travelers, STL carried
the highest share at 47 percent, followed by
MCI with 29 percent. For international
passengers, STL also had the highest share
with 53 percent of diverting passengers, while
MCI served 18 percent. ORD did not serve
domestic passengers; however, 10 percent of
the international true market used ORD.
The last study, completed for year ended June
30, 2016, estimated a total of 708,152 annual
true market passengers. Retention for COU
improved 5 points, with United serving the
market for less than half the year. It is
expected with a full year of United service that
COU should be closing in on 30 percent
retention.
AIRPORT USE
EXHIBIT 3.4 AIRPORT USE
STL47%
MCI28%
COU23%
SGF1%
ORD1%
TABLE 3.2 AIRPORT USE - DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
RANK
ORIGINATING
AIRPORT
AIRPORT USE
CY 2017 YE 2Q 2016 CHANGE
PAX % PAX % PAX %
Domestic
1 STL 303,744 47 337,518 53 (33,774) (7)
2 MCI 191,776 29 174,896 27 16,880 2
3 COU 151,603 23 113,657 18 37,946 5
4 SGF 7,964 1 9,935 2 (1,971) (0)
5 ORD 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 655,088 100 636,006 100 19,082 -
International
1 STL 39,686 53 44,744 62 (5,058) (9)
2 MCI 13,547 18 16,490 23 (2,943) (5)
3 COU 12,859 17 10,107 14 2,752 3
4 ORD 7,456 10 0 0 7,456 10
5 SGF 1,325 2 805 1 520 1
Subtotal 74,873 100 72,146 100 2,727 -
Domestic and international
1 STL 343,430 47 382,262 54 (38,832) (7)
2 MCI 205,323 28 191,386 27 13,937 1
3 COU 164,462 23 123,764 17 40,698 5
4 SGF 9,290 1 10,740 2 (1,450) (0)
5 ORD 7,456 1 0 0 7,456 1
Total 729,961 100 708,152 100 21,809 -
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 10
AIRPORT USE BY COMMUNITY
Airport retention rates by community are an important aspect to understanding the overall catchment area.
Table 3.3 shows how retention varies among the local communities within it. Overall, the Columbia
community generated the most traffic from the catchment area, with an estimated 395,987 true market
passengers, of which 26 percent used COU. The Jefferson City community had the second highest share of
passengers with 107,871 annual passengers. Retention rates were highest from the Ashland and Columbia
communities, while the lowest retention was from Osage Beach and Mexico.
TABLE 3.3 AIRPORT USE BY COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
AIRPORT USE % TRUE MARKET
ESTIMATESTL MCI COU SGF ORD
Columbia 46 27 26 0 1 395,987
Jefferson City 48 25 25 1 1 107,871
Fulton 54 24 21 0 0 17,745
Osage Beach 49 25 10 14 2 13,635
Moberly 43 31 25 0 1 11,970
Ashland 37 23 39 0 1 11,473
Lake Ozark 51 29 10 9 1 10,721
Boonville 39 46 15 0 0 10,667
Mexico 71 20 8 0 1 10,595
Holts Summit 53 21 24 1 1 9,595
All Other 45 35 17 3 0 129,700
Total 47 28 23 1 1 729,961
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 11
SECTION 4. TRUE MARKET
TRUE MARKET ESTIMATE
The airport catchment area (Exhibit 3.1, page 6) represents the defined geographic area from
which the airport primarily attracts air travelers. Domestic airlines report origin and destination traffic
statistics to the US DOT on a quarterly basis. Used by itself, these traffic statistics do not quantify
the total size of an air service market. By combining ARC tickets with passenger data contained in
the US DOT airline reports, an estimate of the total air travel market by destination was calculated.
The total air travel market is also referred to as the “true market”. Passengers are estimated for
domestic and international markets on a destination basis. Adjustments were made to account for
Allegiant Air, Frontier Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Spirit Airlines, which are under-represented in
ARC data.
The ARC data used in this report includes information on initiated passengers ticketed by local or
online travel agencies. This enables the identification of passenger retention and diversion.
According to US DOT airline reports for the year ended December 31, 2017, 63 percent of origin
and destination passengers initiated air travel from COU, and the other 37 percent began their trip
from another city (e.g. New York, Dallas and Phoenix). For the purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that travel patterns for COU visitors mirror catchment area passengers.
he true market section provides the
total number of passengers in the
catchment area; specifically, it
analyzes the portion of passengers
diverting from the COU air service
catchment area. This section investigates
destinations associated with travel to and
from the catchment area. In addition,
destinations are grouped into geographic
regions to further understand the regional
flows of catchment area air travelers.
T
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 12
TOP 25 TRUE MARKET DESTINATIONS
As shown in Table 4.1, the top 25 destinations accounted for 57 percent of the travel to/from the COU catchment area. Dallas-
Fort Worth was the largest market with 28,654 annual passengers (39.3 passengers daily each way (PDEW)) and accounted
for 4.4 percent of all catchment area travel. Denver, Washington-National, Phoenix-Sky Harbor and ORD made up the
remaining top five markets. COU had nonstop service to three of its top five destinations. Only Washington-National and
Phoenix-Sky Harbor had no service for the top five markets from COU.
TABLE 4.1 TRUE MARKET ESTIMATE - TOP 25 DESTINATIONS
RANK DESTINATION
COU REPORTED
PAX
DIVERTED
PAX
TRUE
MARKET PDEW
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 21,233 7,421 28,654 39.3
2 Denver, CO 5,636 21,624 27,261 37.3
3 Washington, DC (DCA) 5,205 20,636 25,842 35.4
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 3,262 21,952 25,214 34.5
5 Chicago, IL (ORD) 17,634 6,707 24,341 33.3
6 New York, NY (LGA) 3,876 20,216 24,092 33.0
7 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,760 20,579 23,338 32.0
8 Las Vegas, NV 2,281 21,038 23,319 31.9
9 Los Angeles, CA 3,196 18,975 22,171 30.4
10 Atlanta, GA 2,661 17,375 20,037 27.4
11 San Francisco, CA 3,205 14,673 17,878 24.5
12 Boston, MA 3,032 14,076 17,107 23.4
13 Seattle, WA 1,494 12,207 13,701 18.8
14 Newark, NJ 1,484 11,932 13,416 18.4
15 San Diego, CA 3,236 10,074 13,309 18.2
16 Portland, OR 1,275 11,219 12,494 17.1
17 Philadelphia, PA 1,901 9,427 11,328 15.5
18 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,944 8,974 10,918 15.0
19 Raleigh/Durham, NC 1,543 8,132 9,675 13.3
20 Tampa, FL 2,119 7,294 9,413 12.9
21 Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,484 7,625 9,109 12.5
22 Dallas, TX (DAL) 0 8,988 8,988 12.3
23 Miami, FL 1,128 7,592 8,720 11.9
24 Austin, TX 2,906 5,364 8,270 11.3
25 Orange County, CA 1,903 5,867 7,771 10.6
Top 25 destinations 96,400 319,965 416,365 570.4
Total domestic 151,603 503,485 655,088 897.4
Total international 12,859 62,014 74,873 102.6
All markets 164,462 565,499 729,961 999.9
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 13
ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR THE TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS
Table 4.2 shows the percentage of passengers by market and originating airport. Twenty-three percent of passengers used
COU for travel to the top 25 domestic markets. With nonstop service to three of the top five markets, retention rates were
higher than the overall average. The lowest retention rate for markets within the top 25 was to Dallas-Love Field with zero
percent. Dallas-Fort Worth and ORD had retention rates over 70 percent, with year-round service from COU. While Denver
had service for just a few months, its retention was much lower than the other nonstop destinations. During the previous study,
retention to Denver was just 7 percent, so there was significant improvement during the limited service.
Higher Retention in
Nonstop MarketsMarkets with nonstop
service tended to have
higher retention rates
than markets without
nonstop service.
TABLE 4.2 TOP 25 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT
RANK DESTINATION
ORIGIN AIRPORT % TOTAL
PAXSTL MCI COU SGF ORD
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 12 13 74 2 0 28,654
2 Denver, CO 28 51 21 0 0 27,261
3 Washington, DC (DCA) 60 19 20 1 0 25,842
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 51 36 13 1 0 25,214
5 Chicago, IL (ORD) 21 7 72 0 0 24,341
6 New York, NY (LGA) 65 18 16 0 0 24,092
7 Orlando, FL (MCO) 53 35 12 0 0 23,338
8 Las Vegas, NV 37 53 10 0 0 23,319
9 Los Angeles, CA 23 62 14 0 0 22,171
10 Atlanta, GA 72 14 13 1 0 20,037
11 San Francisco, CA 52 30 18 0 0 17,878
12 Boston, MA 48 34 18 0 0 17,107
13 Seattle, WA 37 51 11 1 0 13,701
14 Newark, NJ 75 14 11 0 0 13,416
15 San Diego, CA 42 33 24 2 0 13,309
16 Portland, OR 53 37 10 0 0 12,494
17 Philadelphia, PA 65 17 17 1 0 11,328
18 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 49 24 18 10 0 10,918
19 Raleigh/Durham, NC 68 16 16 0 0 9,675
20 Tampa, FL 46 31 23 1 0 9,413
21 Fort Lauderdale, FL 59 23 16 1 0 9,109
22 Dallas, TX (DAL) 45 55 0 0 0 8,988
23 Miami, FL 70 16 13 2 0 8,720
24 Austin, TX 22 43 35 0 0 8,270
25 Orange County, CA 34 40 24 2 0 7,771
Top 25 domestic 45 31 23 1 0 416,365
Total domestic 46 29 23 1 0 655,088
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 14
TOP 10 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY
ORIGINATING AIRPORT
Table 4.3 shows the top 10 markets when passengers exclusively
fly out of COU as well as the top 10 markets when diverted
passengers fly from STL, MCI and SGF. COU top 10 markets were
dominated in large part by the markets with nonstop service. The
top flown market for catchment area passengers at STL were New
York-LaGuardia, Washington-National, Atlanta, Phoenix-Sky
Harbor and Orlando-International. The top markets from MCI were
to the west.
TABLE 4.3 TOP 10 DOMESTIC DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT
RANK
STL MCI
DESTINATION PAX DESTINATION PAX
1 New York, NY (LGA) 15,767 Denver, CO 13,974
2 Washington, DC (DCA) 15,496 Los Angeles, CA 13,813
3 Atlanta, GA 14,368 Las Vegas, NV 12,310
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 12,844 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 8,978
5 Orlando, FL (MCO) 12,297 Orlando, FL (MCO) 8,188
6 Newark, NJ 10,049 Seattle, WA 7,046
7 San Francisco, CA 9,249 Boston, MA 5,800
8 Las Vegas, NV 8,612 San Francisco, CA 5,351
9 Boston, MA 8,275 Washington, DC (DCA) 4,950
10 Denver, CO 7,527 Dallas, TX (DAL) 4,906
RANK
COU SGF
DESTINATION PAX DESTINATION PAX
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 21,233 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,060
2 Chicago, IL (ORD) 17,634 Richmond, VA 760
3 Denver, CO 5,636 Dallas, TX (DFW) 441
4 Washington, DC (DCA) 5,205 San Jose, CA 385
5 New York, NY (LGA) 3,876 Boise, ID 279
6 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 3,262 San Diego, CA 209
7 San Diego, CA 3,236 Norfolk, VA 204
8 San Francisco, CA 3,205 Washington, DC (DCA) 190
9 Los Angeles, CA 3,196 Orange County, CA 177
10 Boston, MA 3,032 Sacramento, CA 174
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 15
ORIGINATING AIRPORT FOR THE TOP 15 INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS
Table 4.4 shows the percentage of passengers for the top 15 international destinations by originating airport.
Two percent of air travelers from the catchment area used COU for travel to the top 15 international
destinations. International travel overall had a lower retention rate (17 percent) than domestic travel (23
percent). The top three international markets were: Cancun, Mexico; London-Heathrow, United Kingdom;
and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico. Beijing, China, and Toronto, Canada, completed the top five destinations.
The highest COU retention at 51 percent was to Shanghai, China, while the lowest retention was to Cancun,
Mexico, at 5 percent.
TABLE 4.4 TOP 15 INTERNATIONAL DESTINATIONS BY ORIGINATING AIRPORT
RANK DESTINATION
ORIGIN AIRPORT % PASSENGERS
STL MCI COU ORD SGF TOTAL PDEW
1 Cancun, Mexico 77 15 5 1 2 6,416 8.8
2 London, UK (LHR) 48 11 18 18 4 4,472 6.1
3 San Jose del Cabo, Mexico 32 55 7 2 5 2,930 4.0
4 Beijing, China 58 8 26 7 1 2,907 4.0
5 Toronto, Canada 59 4 34 3 1 2,763 3.8
6 Vancouver, Canada 46 40 15 0 0 2,460 3.4
7 Mexico City, Mexico 67 18 14 1 0 2,163 3.0
8 Montego Bay, Jamaica 80 4 9 3 4 1,950 2.7
9 Paris-De Gaulle, France 34 15 18 31 2 1,660 2.3
10 Puerto Vallarta, Mexico 46 29 19 0 6 1,572 2.2
11 Seoul, South Korea 50 9 35 6 0 1,378 1.9
12 Shanghai, China 38 2 51 9 0 1,341 1.8
13 Punta Cana, Dominican Republic 64 28 6 1 0 1,214 1.7
14 Zurich, Switzerland 59 26 11 4 0 1,058 1.4
15 San Jose, Costa Rica 61 27 8 2 1 996 1.4
Top 15 International 57 19 2 19 2 35,280 48.3
Total International 53 18 17 10 2 74,873 102.6
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 16
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
It is important to identify and quantify air travel markets, but it is also important to measure air travel by specific geographic
regions. Generally, airlines operate route systems that serve geographic areas. Additionally, most airline hubs are directional
and flow passenger traffic to and from geographic regions, not just destinations within the region. Therefore, air service
analysis exercises consider the regional flow of passenger traffic as well as passenger traffic to a specific city. Accordingly, this
section analyzes the regional distribution of air travelers from the airport catchment area. For this exercise, the FAA
geographic breakdown of the US is used (Exhibit 4.1).
EXHIBIT 4.1 FAA GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
NortheastNorthwest
West
Southwest
Central
Great Lakes
Southeast
East
Alaska
NortheastNorthwest
West
Southwest
Central
Great Lakes
Southeast
East
Alaska
Northeast
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 17
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVELERS
Table 4.5 and Exhibit 4.2 divide catchment area travel into the FAA's nine geographic regions and one catch-all international
region. The West region was the largest traveled region for catchment area passengers with the Southeast region following as
the second largest region. The international region was the sixth largest traveled region. Retention was the highest in the
Southwest region at 42 percent. The lowest retention was to Alaska at 12 percent.
EXHIBIT 4.2 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL
West Largest
RegionThe West region had
the highest number of
air travelers (19
percent) while attaining
a 17 percent retention.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
W SE E SW GL INTL NW NE AK C
Tru
e m
ark
et
pa
ssen
ge
rs
ORD SGF COU MCI STL
TABLE 4.5 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL BY AIRPORT
AIRPORT
REGION
W SE E SW GL INTL NW NE AK C TOTAL
STLPax 56,567 79,447 65,319 26,626 32,785 39,686 25,535 17,117 206 142 343,430
% 16 23 19 8 10 12 7 5 0 0 100
MCIPax 59,305 32,186 17,313 25,302 14,806 13,547 33,985 8,608 187 84 205,323
% 29 16 8 12 7 7 17 4 0 0 100
COUPax 24,673 22,541 19,605 38,460 28,567 12,859 12,824 4,774 51 109 164,462
% 15 14 12 23 17 8 8 3 0 0 100
SGFPax 1,365 2,466 1,577 1,229 486 1,325 685 148 1 7 9,290
% 15 27 17 13 5 14 7 2 0 0 100
ORDPax 0 0 0 0 0 7,456 0 0 0 0 7,456
% 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 100
TotalPax 141,910 136,639 103,813 91,618 76,644 74,873 73,029 30,647 444 342 729,961
% 19 19 14 13 10 10 10 4 0 0 100
COU Retention % 17 16 19 42 37 17 18 16 12 32 23
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 18
DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL
Ten percent of catchment area travelers had international
itineraries. Table 4.6 shows international travelers by airport and
region. Mexico and Central America was the most frequented
international region with 26 percent, or 19,609 of the total 74,873
catchment area international travelers, followed by Europe with 23
percent of the total. Asia was the third largest international region
with 21 percent. Retention was highest to Asia at 27 percent,
followed by Canada at 23 percent.
TABLE 4.6 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS
REGION
ORIGINATING AIRPORTTRUE
MARKET
% OF
COLUMN
COU
RETENTION
%STL MCI COU ORD SGF
Mexico & Central America 11,628 4,825 2,083 565 509 19,609 26 11
Europe 8,101 2,564 2,721 3,071 406 16,863 23 16
Asia 7,107 1,747 4,217 2,269 117 15,457 21 27
Canada 4,615 1,743 1,951 271 36 8,617 12 23
Caribbean 4,300 900 693 165 138 6,195 8 11
South America 1,432 897 478 393 51 3,251 4 15
Middle East 1,423 450 402 350 43 2,668 4 15
Africa 763 314 230 216 16 1,540 2 15
Australia & Oceania 318 107 85 155 9 673 1 13
Total passengers 39,686 13,547 12,859 7,456 1,325 74,873 100 17
% of row 54 19 18 10 2 100 - -
% of column 100 100 100 100 100 100 - -
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 19
SECTION 5. AIRLINES
AIRLINES USED AT COU
Table 5.1 provides the airline share
for the top 25 COU markets and total
share by airline. American Airlines
was the largest carrier at COU,
carrying 82 percent of passengers,
followed by United Airlines with 17
percent. All other carriers,
representing codeshare partners,
combined for the remaining 1 percent.
nformation in this section identifies airline use by catchment area air travelers. The information
is airport and airline specific. The intent is to determine which airlines are used to travel to
specific destinations. The airline market share at COU is based on US DOT airline reported
data. Airline market share at STL and MCI, as well as the total diverting passengers, is based on
ARC data and is an estimation of diverting passenger carrier share. Other alternate airports were
not shown due to the lower capture rate of catchment area travelers.
I
TABLE 5.1 AIRLINES USED AT COU
RANK DESTINATION
AIRLINE % TOTAL
PAXAA UA OTHER
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 100 0 0 21,233
2 Chicago, IL (ORD) 79 21 0 17,634
3 Denver, CO 28 72 0 5,636
4 Washington, DC (DCA) 80 20 0 5,205
5 New York, NY (LGA) 75 25 0 3,876
6 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 94 6 0 3,262
7 San Diego, CA 88 12 0 3,236
8 San Francisco, CA 74 26 0 3,205
9 Los Angeles, CA 81 19 0 3,196
10 Boston, MA 76 24 0 3,032
11 Austin, TX 98 2 0 2,906
12 Orlando, FL (MCO) 90 10 0 2,760
13 Atlanta, GA 85 15 0 2,661
14 San Antonio, TX 99 1 0 2,296
15 Las Vegas, NV 77 23 0 2,281
16 Houston, TX (IAH) 93 7 0 2,126
17 Tampa, FL 96 4 0 2,119
18 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 91 9 0 1,944
19 Orange County, CA 84 16 0 1,903
20 Philadelphia, PA 81 19 0 1,901
21 New Orleans, LA 98 2 0 1,707
22 Salt Lake City, UT 84 16 0 1,606
23 Minneapolis, MN 62 37 1 1,577
24 Sacramento, CA 86 14 0 1,568
25 Raleigh/Durham, NC 95 5 0 1,543
Total top 25 84 16 0 100,415
Total all markets 82 17 1 164,462
Source: Diio Mi, Inc.
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 20
AIRLINES USED AT STL
Table 5.2 shows the airlines used when travelers from the catchment area used STL. Southwest Airlines
had the largest share of catchment area passengers at STL carrying 44 percent of diverting passengers.
American had the second highest share of passengers with 25 percent, followed by Delta Air Lines with 16
percent, United with 11 percent, and all other carriers combined to obtain 4 percent of passengers.
TABLE 5.2 AIRLINES USED AT STL
RANK DESTINATION
AIRLINE % TOTAL
STL PAXWN AA DL UA OTHER
1 New York, NY (LGA) 34 31 33 0 2 15,767
2 Washington, DC (DCA) 56 37 2 1 4 15,496
3 Atlanta, GA 41 3 55 0 1 14,368
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 65 32 1 1 1 12,844
5 Orlando, FL (MCO) 52 14 21 2 11 12,297
6 Newark, NJ 1 7 11 81 0 10,049
7 San Francisco, CA 40 10 6 43 0 9,249
8 Las Vegas, NV 54 12 23 4 7 8,612
9 Boston, MA 73 14 12 1 0 8,275
10 Denver, CO 60 1 1 32 5 7,527
11 Philadelphia, PA 44 45 5 0 6 7,381
12 Raleigh/Durham, NC 69 12 19 0 0 6,592
13 Portland, OR 54 5 5 5 32 6,584
14 Miami, FL 0 85 6 2 6 6,087
15 San Diego, CA 73 7 10 8 1 5,526
16 Fort Lauderdale, FL 84 7 8 1 0 5,408
17 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 6 77 11 0 6 5,325
18 Chicago, IL (MDW) 100 0 0 0 0 5,250
19 Los Angeles, CA 57 34 3 4 2 5,145
20 Seattle, WA 29 3 8 6 54 5,065
21 Chicago, IL (ORD) 0 46 0 42 12 5,042
22 Fort Myers, FL 72 8 15 2 3 4,297
23 Tampa, FL 77 9 12 1 1 4,294
24 Dallas, TX (DAL) 100 0 0 0 0 4,083
25 Minneapolis, MN 34 3 57 1 5 3,858
Total top 25 49 21 15 10 5 194,420
Total all domestic markets 44 25 16 11 4 303,744
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 21
AIRLINES USED AT MCI
Table 5.3 shows the airlines used when travelers from the
catchment area used MCI. Southwest had the largest share of
catchment area passengers at MCI carrying 46 percent of diverting
passengers. American had the second highest share of passengers
with 18 percent, followed by Delta with 16 percent, United with 12
percent, and all other carriers combined to obtain 7 percent of
passengers.
TABLE 5.3 AIRLINES USED AT MCI
RANK DESTINATION
AIRLINE % TOTAL
MCI PAXWN AA DL UA OTHER
1 Denver, CO 62 1 0 35 3 13,974
2 Los Angeles, CA 47 19 22 7 6 13,813
3 Las Vegas, NV 60 17 14 4 5 12,310
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 71 29 0 1 0 8,978
5 Orlando, FL (MCO) 57 8 26 5 5 8,188
6 Seattle, WA 27 10 5 6 51 7,046
7 Boston, MA 71 10 11 8 0 5,800
8 San Francisco, CA 25 7 6 44 16 5,351
9 Washington, DC (DCA) 59 31 3 1 5 4,950
10 Dallas, TX (DAL) 100 0 0 0 0 4,906
11 Portland, OR 49 3 7 7 32 4,635
12 New York, NY (LGA) 30 25 42 1 1 4,369
13 San Diego, CA 78 7 9 4 1 4,339
14 Dallas, TX (DFW) 0 95 0 0 5 3,600
15 Austin, TX 3 64 9 24 0 3,576
16 Salt Lake City, UT 24 4 68 1 2 3,319
17 Orange County, CA 52 16 23 7 0 3,082
18 Tampa, FL 76 7 16 0 0 2,887
19 Atlanta, GA 35 1 62 1 1 2,845
20 San Jose, CA 70 16 7 7 0 2,725
21 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 9 48 36 7 0 2,588
22 Chicago, IL (MDW) 99 0 1 0 0 2,500
23 Detroit, MI 9 0 68 0 22 2,220
24 Fort Lauderdale, FL 74 4 17 3 1 2,091
25 Philadelphia, PA 23 30 28 17 2 1,937
Total top 25 52 16 15 10 7 132,030
Total all domestic markets 46 18 16 12 7 191,776
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 22
AIRLINES USED AT DIVERTING AIRPORTS
Exhibit 5.1 displays the combined market share of airlines serving the COU catchment area diverting passengers regardless
of which airport was used. Southwest had the highest share with 45 percent, followed by American with 23 percent, Delta with
16 percent, United with 11 percent and Alaska Airlines with 3 percent. Frontier, Allegiant, Spirit and other airlines combined for
the remaining 2 percent of diverting passengers.
EXHIBIT 5.1 AIRLINE MARKET SHARE OF DIVERTING PASSENGERS
WN45%
AA 23%
DL 16%
UA 11%
AS 3%
Other2%
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 23
SECTION 6. FACTORS AFFECTING AIR
SERVICE DEMAND AND RETENTION
PASSENGER ACTIVITY COMPARISON
To better understand the changes in passenger
volumes at COU and the competing airports, Exhibit
6.1 provides a depiction of domestic origin and
destination (O&D) passengers over the last 10 years
by passenger totals for the year ended December 31,
as reported to the US DOT. During this period, the
following changes occurred:
• COU's domestic origin and destination
passengers increased at a CAGR of 24.7
percent since 2008.
• STL’s passengers were relatively flat since
2008, down less than 1,000 total passengers.
• SGF’s and MCI’s passengers increased at
CAGRs of 2.6 and 0.4 percent, respectively,
over the past 10 years.
his section examines several factors that have affected and will continue to affect air
service demand in the Central Missouri area and COU's ability to retain passengers.
The factors affecting the ability to retain passengers included in this section are: airfares,
nonstop service availability at COU and the competing airports, and the quality and capacity of air
service offered at COU and the competing airports.
T
EXHIBIT 6.1 DOMESTIC PASSENGER TRENDS
0
1,500,000
3,000,000
4,500,000
6,000,000
7,500,000
9,000,000
10,500,000
12,000,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
O&
D P
ax:
ST
L/S
GF
/MC
I
O&
D P
ax:
CO
U
Calendar Year
COU STL SGF MCI
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 24
AIRFARES
When a traveler decides which airport to access for travel, airfares play a large role. Airfares affect air service demand and an
airport’s ability to retain passengers. One-way airfares (excluding taxes and Passenger Facility Charges (PFC)) paid by
travelers are used to measure the relative fare competitiveness between COU and the competing airports. Fares listed for
competing airports are for all air travelers using these airports and are not reflective of the average fare paid by catchment
area travelers diverting to the airports.
Fare Disparity at
COUCompared to MCI and
STL, fares at COU
were higher in 23 of
the top 25 top
destinations, and
overall were $47 higher
than STL and $58
higher than MCI.Table 6.1 shows one-way average airfares for the
top 25 catchment area domestic destinations.
Average airfares are a result of many factors
including: length of haul, availability of seats,
business versus leisure fares and airline
competition. The overall average fare for the year
ended December 31, 2017, at COU was $221.
Overall, the fares at COU were $2 more
expensive than SGF, $47 higher than STL and
$58 higher than MCI.
In individual markets, COU had the highest
overall fare to four markets. Excluding SGF fares,
COU had the highest fares in 23 of the top 25
markets.
TABLE 6.1 U.S. DOT AVERAGE DOMESTIC ONE-WAY FARES
RANK DESTINATION
AVERAGE
ONE-WAY FARECOU
MAX
DIFF.STL MCI COU SGF
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) $173 $135 $159 $181 $24
2 Denver, CO $110 $107 $187 $259 $80
3 Washington, DC (DCA) $175 $179 $249 $244 $75
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) $153 $160 $243 $277 $90
5 Chicago, IL (ORD) $171 $157 $184 $208 $27
6 New York, NY (LGA) $178 $178 $230 $255 $53
7 Orlando, FL (MCO) $105 $110 $228 $253 $123
8 Las Vegas, NV $122 $110 $234 $139 $125
9 Los Angeles, CA $198 $119 $254 $157 $135
10 Atlanta, GA $126 $132 $219 $249 $93
11 San Francisco, CA $215 $210 $245 $287 $34
12 Boston, MA $229 $168 $244 $285 $76
13 Seattle, WA $201 $182 $260 $284 $78
14 Newark, NJ $204 $209 $234 $294 $30
15 San Diego, CA $183 $175 $215 $272 $41
16 Portland, OR $184 $190 $303 $308 $119
17 Philadelphia, PA $221 $199 $251 $286 $52
18 Charlotte-Douglas, NC $229 $213 $250 $234 $37
19 Raleigh/Durham, NC $190 $182 $243 $269 $61
20 Tampa, FL $149 $152 $192 $250 $44
21 Fort Lauderdale, FL $157 $155 $226 $242 $71
22 Dallas, TX (DAL) $146 $120 - - -
23 Miami, FL $192 $211 $229 $240 $37
24 Austin, TX $162 $139 $207 $274 $67
25 Orange County, CA $204 $187 $240 $289 $53
Average domestic fare $174 $162 $221 $219 $58
Source: Diio Mi; Note: Year Ended December 31, 2017
Fares do not include taxes or Passenger Facility Charges
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 25
Exhibit 6.2 tracks the average fares at COU, STL, MCI and SGF for the year ended December 31, 2008, through year ended
December 31, 2017. Based on US DOT airline data from 2008 through 2017, average fares have fluctuated as follows:
• COU's fares have ranged from $164 (2008) to $238 (2016) and increased at a CAGR of 3.3 percent.
• STL’s fares have ranged from $135 (2009) to $184 (2014) and increased at a CAGR of 1.9 percent.
• MCI’s fares have ranged from $127 (2009) to $179 (2014) and increased at a CAGR at 1.6 percent
• The average fare at SGF ranged from $166 (2009) to $219 (2017) and increased at a CAGR of 0.6 percent.
The fare disparity compared to STL has ranged significantly over the 10-year period, ranging from $17 in 2008 to as high as
$64 in 2016. Compared to MCI, the fare disparity was as low as $21 in 2013 and as high as $71 in 2016. Overall, the fare
difference has widened over the past five years compared to the previous five-year timeframe; however, competition and
additional capacity helped drive COU average fares lower in 2017.
EXHIBIT 6.2 10-YEAR AVERAGE DOMESTIC ONE-WAY FARE TREND
$90
$110
$130
$150
$170
$190
$210
$230
$250
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
On
e-w
ay a
vera
ge
fare
Calendar Year
COU MCI STL SGF
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 26
NONSTOP SERVICE AVAILABILITY
Travelers drive to competing airports to access air service for
many reasons, one of which is nonstop service availability.
Table 6.2 compares the level of air service offered at COU
with that offered at STL, MCI and SGF.
In October 2017, COU offered nonstop service to three
markets, all of them in the top 25 catchment area
destinations with 49 weekly frequencies. STL had service to
24 of the top 25 markets with 919 weekly departures. MCI
offered service to 23 of the top 25 destinations, while SGF
offered service to seven of the top 25 markets.
COU had Nonstop
Service to Three of
the Top 25
DestinationsCOU offered nonstop
service to three of the
top 25 catchment area
destinations on 49
weekly departures.
TABLE 6.2 NONSTOP SERVICE COMPARISON
RANK DESTINATION
WEEKLY DEPARTURES
STL MCI COU SGF
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 46 45 14 52
2 Denver, CO 76 80 7 20
3 Washington, DC (DCA) 53 31 - -
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 34 35 - -
5 Chicago, IL (ORD) 106 80 28 55
6 New York, NY (LGA) 86 37 - -
7 Orlando, FL (MCO) 35 22 - -
8 Las Vegas, NV 34 36 - 2
9 Los Angeles, CA 34 48 - 2
10 Atlanta, GA 79 72 - 27
11 San Francisco, CA 20 28 - -
12 Boston, MA 21 20 - -
13 Seattle, WA 21 19 - -
14 Newark, NJ 46 20 - -
15 San Diego, CA 8 13 - -
16 Portland, OR 14 12 - -
17 Philadelphia, PA 46 19 - -
18 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 40 26 - 14
19 Raleigh/Durham, NC 14 - - -
20 Tampa, FL 18 7 - -
21 Fort Lauderdale, FL 15 7 - -
22 Dallas, TX (DAL) 40 46 - -
23 Miami, FL 21 7 - -
24 Austin, TX 12 7 - -
25 Orange County, CA - - - -
Total top 25 frequencies 919 717 49 172
Number of top 25 served 24 23 3 7
Total destinations served 62 47 3 12
Note: Sample week in October 2017
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 27
QUALITY OF AIR SERVICE AT COMPETING AIRPORTS
The quality of air service offered by an airport is a factor in a traveler’s decision when selecting where to
originate or terminate air service. In general, passengers prefer larger aircraft over smaller aircraft and jet
aircraft over turboprop aircraft. For the purposes of this section, quality of air service is measured by size of
aircraft and jets versus turboprops.
Table 6.3 provides weekly departures by aircraft type and size. COU offered 49 weekly departures and
2,814 weekly seats, with 100 percent of flights on regional jet aircraft. STL had 183,093 seats on 1,683
weekly departures, and MCI provided 1,084 weekly departures and 142,111 weekly seats. Both STL and
MCI had 25 percent of flights on regional jets. SGF had a total of 14,239 weekly seats on 169 weekly
departures, of which 87 percent were on regional jets.
TABLE 6.3 DEPARTURES BY AIRCRAFT TYPE BY ORIGIN
AIRCRAFT
TYPE
SEAT
RANGE
WEEKLY DEPARTURES
STL MCI COU SGF
Turbo prop<9 241 - - -
19-50 - - - -
Regional jet
30-50 171 20 35 88
51-70 124 85 - 29
71-100 134 170 14 30
Narrow body jet
<125 9 40 - -
126-160 725 503 - 12
160+ 279 266 - 10
Total departures 1,683 1,084 49 169
% regional jet departures 25% 25% 100% 87%
Total seats 183,093 142,111 2,814 14,239
Source: Diio Mi; Note: Sample week in October 2017
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 28
RETENTION RATE SENSITIVITY
Considering the previous factors of airfares, nonstop service and
quality of service, a retention rate sensitivity follows in Table 6.4.
The purpose is to show how small changes in passenger retention
can affect passenger volume. Passengers in total and for each of
the top 25 markets are calculated using varying degrees of
retention. Overall a 10 percentage point gain in retention would
generate approximately 73 PDEW for COU.
TABLE 6.4 RETENTION RATE SENSITIVITY
RANK DESTINATION
REPORTED
PAX
RETENTION
%
RETENTION IMPROVEMENT
5% 10% 15%
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 21,233 74 22,666 24,098 25,531
2 Denver, CO 5,636 21 6,999 8,362 9,725
3 Washington, DC (DCA) 5,205 20 6,497 7,790 9,082
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 3,262 13 4,523 5,784 7,044
5 Chicago, IL (ORD) 17,634 72 18,851 20,069 21,286
6 New York, NY (LGA) 3,876 16 5,081 6,285 7,490
7 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,760 12 3,926 5,093 6,260
8 Las Vegas, NV 2,281 10 3,447 4,613 5,779
9 Los Angeles, CA 3,196 14 4,305 5,414 6,522
10 Atlanta, GA 2,661 13 3,663 4,665 5,667
11 San Francisco, CA 3,205 18 4,099 4,993 5,886
12 Boston, MA 3,032 18 3,887 4,742 5,598
13 Seattle, WA 1,494 11 2,179 2,864 3,549
14 Newark, NJ 1,484 11 2,155 2,826 3,496
15 San Diego, CA 3,236 24 3,901 4,566 5,232
16 Portland, OR 1,275 10 1,900 2,524 3,149
17 Philadelphia, PA 1,901 17 2,467 3,034 3,600
18 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,944 18 2,490 3,036 3,582
19 Raleigh/Durham, NC 1,543 16 2,027 2,511 2,995
20 Tampa, FL 2,119 23 2,590 3,061 3,531
21 Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,484 16 1,940 2,395 2,850
22 Dallas, TX (DAL) 0 0 449 899 1,348
23 Miami, FL 1,128 13 1,564 2,000 2,436
24 Austin, TX 2,906 35 3,319 3,733 4,146
25 Orange County, CA 1,903 24 2,292 2,680 3,069
Total top 25 96,400 23 117,218 138,037 158,855
Total domestic 151,603 23 184,358 217,112 249,866
Total international 12,859 17 16,602 20,346 24,090
Total of all markets 164,462 23 200,960 237,458 273,956
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 29
SECTION 7. SITUATION ANALYSIS
In August 2017, United Airlines began COU nonstop service to their Denver and ORD hubs. While
this study includes only five months of United service, COU was able to see a large improvement in
retention, increasing from 17 percent for the year ended June 30, 2016, to 23 percent for calendar
year 2017. Looking at service post United startup, COU’s retention appears to be much closer to 30
percent overall.
While the market continues to grow and absorb the capacity added by United, attention should be
given to both airlines. For the fall of 2017 and winter of 2018, load factors to Dallas-Fort Worth and
ORD were down year-over-year, with first quarter 2018 load factors to Dallas-Fort Worth down 5
points (from 82 to 77 percent) and to ORD on American down 13 points (from 78 to 65 percent).
Comparatively, United had similar load factors to Denver and ORD, with a 65 percent load factor to
Denver and 66 percent load factor to ORD. While American’s load factors were clearly impacted by
the new capacity, American has already added the third frequency to both Dallas and ORD and
upgraded service to primarily CRJ-900 and CRJ-700 equipment going forward. As a result,
American currently shows an additional 50 percent increase in seats for the first quarter of 2019.
Continued aggressive marketing will be required to help support the rapid growth in capacity,
particularly in the slower winter period.
OU is in the central part of
Missouri, approximately two to 2.5
hours from STL and MCI. COU is
one of the great success stories of the EAS
program, having gone from subsidized
service with just 10,000 annual passengers
a decade ago, to unsubsidized service on
two airlines to three different hubs and
nearly 200,000 annual passengers.
C
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 30
Due to the relatively weak load factors since United’s startup and American’s additional capacity, it is
unlikely that new hub destinations could be supported at COU in the near term. It is important for the airport
to fully absorb the increased number of seats available in the marketplace and re-gain load factors in the
upper 70s or 80s. Once the market has fully absorbed these extra seats, additional frequency on United to
Denver should be a priority, as it will greatly increase the number of connecting opportunities for westbound
passengers.
New potential service to traditional legacy hubs is likely limited to the southeastern US, such as Charlotte or
Atlanta. These hubs would allow for better connections to the southeastern US supporting the Southeastern
Conference (SEC) market demand and provide nonstop service to two of the top 20 true markets for COU.
Delta has not indicated an interest in returning to COU; however, they are aware of the success at COU and
should be considered for future growth opportunities.
The addition of a low-cost leisure airline to COU would also help to round out its product offerings for the
catchment area. An airline like Allegiant Air or Sun Country would be able to serve population destination
markets such as Orlando or Tampa with less-than-daily service on mainline aircraft, helping to stimulate new
passengers as well as retain a higher number of passengers from diverting to STL or MCI.
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 31
APPENDIX A. TOP 50 TRUE MARKETS
Continued on next page…
TABLE A.1 TOP 50 TRUE MARKETS
RANK DESTINATION
COU
REPORTED
PAX
RETENTION
%
TRUE
MARKET PDEW
ORIGIN AIRPORT OF
DIVERTING PAX
STL MCI SGF ORD
1 Dallas, TX (DFW) 21,233 74 28,654 39.3 3,380 3,600 441 0
2 Denver, CO 5,636 21 27,261 37.3 7,527 13,974 123 0
3 Washington, DC (DCA) 5,205 20 25,842 35.4 15,496 4,950 190 0
4 Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 3,262 13 25,214 34.5 12,844 8,978 130 0
5 Chicago, IL (ORD) 17,634 72 24,341 33.3 5,042 1,665 0 0
6 New York, NY (LGA) 3,876 16 24,092 33.0 15,767 4,369 79 0
7 Orlando, FL (MCO) 2,760 12 23,338 32.0 12,297 8,188 94 0
8 Las Vegas, NV 2,281 10 23,319 31.9 8,612 12,310 115 0
9 Los Angeles, CA 3,196 14 22,171 30.4 5,145 13,813 16 0
10 Atlanta, GA 2,661 13 20,037 27.4 14,368 2,845 163 0
11 San Francisco, CA 3,205 18 17,878 24.5 9,249 5,351 74 0
12 Boston, MA 3,032 18 17,107 23.4 8,275 5,800 0 0
13 Seattle, WA 1,494 11 13,701 18.8 5,065 7,046 96 0
14 Newark, NJ 1,484 11 13,416 18.4 10,049 1,839 45 0
15 San Diego, CA 3,236 24 13,309 18.2 5,526 4,339 209 0
16 Portland, OR 1,275 10 12,494 17.1 6,584 4,635 0 0
17 Philadelphia, PA 1,901 17 11,328 15.5 7,381 1,937 110 0
18 Charlotte-Douglas, NC 1,944 18 10,918 15.0 5,325 2,588 1,060 0
19 Raleigh/Durham, NC 1,543 16 9,675 13.3 6,592 1,540 0 0
20 Tampa, FL 2,119 23 9,413 12.9 4,294 2,887 113 0
21 Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,484 16 9,109 12.5 5,408 2,091 126 0
22 Dallas, TX (DAL) 0 0 8,988 12.3 4,083 4,906 0 0
23 Miami, FL 1,128 13 8,720 11.9 6,087 1,363 141 0
24 Austin, TX 2,906 35 8,270 11.3 1,788 3,576 0 0
25 Orange County, CA 1,903 24 7,771 10.6 2,608 3,082 177 0
26 Chicago, IL (MDW) 0 0 7,750 10.6 5,250 2,500 0 0
27 Salt Lake City, UT 1,606 22 7,252 9.9 2,242 3,319 85 0
28 San Jose, CA 1,410 19 7,236 9.9 2,717 2,725 385 0
29 Minneapolis, MN 1,577 22 7,230 9.9 3,858 1,795 0 0
30 Detroit, MI 1,049 15 6,924 9.5 3,610 2,220 46 0
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 32
TABLE A.1 TOP 50 TRUE MARKETS (CONTINUED)
RANK DESTINATION
COU
REPORTED
PAX
RETENTION
%
TRUE
MARKET PDEW
ORIGIN AIRPORT OF
DIVERTING PAX
STL MCI SGF ORD
31 Cancun, Mexico 341 5 6,416 8.8 4,968 937 119 52
32 Fort Myers, FL 1,047 17 6,267 8.6 4,297 783 141 0
33 San Antonio, TX 2,296 39 5,872 8.0 1,940 1,578 57 0
34 Houston, TX (IAH) 2,126 37 5,781 7.9 1,657 1,915 83 0
35 Baltimore, MD 998 18 5,510 7.5 3,456 1,056 0 0
36 Providence, RI 266 5 5,432 7.4 3,614 1,553 0 0
37 Sacramento, CA 1,568 30 5,256 7.2 1,770 1,743 174 0
38 New Orleans, LA 1,707 37 4,624 6.3 1,897 948 71 0
39 London, UK (LHR) 825 18 4,472 6.1 2,156 479 186 825
40 Cleveland, OH 877 21 4,135 5.7 2,740 518 0 0
41 Honolulu, HI 389 10 3,899 5.3 2,160 1,350 0 0
42 Hartford, CT 874 22 3,898 5.3 2,827 166 31 0
43 Pittsburgh, PA 845 23 3,658 5.0 2,405 350 58 0
44 Indianapolis, IN 644 18 3,517 4.8 1,066 1,765 42 0
45 Albuquerque, NM 1,336 38 3,507 4.8 1,415 615 141 0
46 Norfolk, VA 681 21 3,270 4.5 2,170 214 204 0
47 Oklahoma City, OK 456 14 3,225 4.4 1,492 1,248 29 0
48 Jacksonville, FL 565 18 3,125 4.3 1,377 1,150 33 0
49 Charleston, SC 452 15 3,009 4.1 2,322 214 22 0
50 Nashville, TN 494 17 2,967 4.1 2,119 353 0 0
Top 50 Destinations 120,831 22 540,598 740.5 254,315 159,168 5,407 877
Total Domestic 151,603 23 655,088 897.4 303,744 191,776 7,964 0
Total International 12,859 17 74,873 102.6 39,686 13,547 1,325 7,456
Total All Markets 164,462 23 729,961 999.9 343,430 205,323 9,290 7,456
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 33
AIRLINE CODES
AA American Airlines
AS Alaska Airlines
DL Delta Air Lines
UA United Airlines
WN Southwest Airlines
AIRPORT CATCHMENT AREA (ACA)
The geographic area surrounding an airport from
which that airport can reasonably expect to draw
passenger traffic. The airport catchment area is
sometimes called the service area.
AIRPORT CODES
COU Columbia, MO
DAL Dallas-Love Field, TX
DCA Washington-National, DC
DFW Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
IAH Houston-Intercontinental, TX
LGA New York-LaGuardia, NY
LHR London-Heathrow, UK
MCI Kansas City, MO
MCO Orlando-International, FL
MDW Chicago-Midway, IL
ORD Chicago-O'Hare, IL
PHX Phoenix-Sky Harbor, AZ
SGF Springfield-Branson, MO
STL St. Louis, MO
ARC
Acronym for Airline Reporting Corporation.
AVERAGE AIRFARE
The average of the airfares reported by the
airlines to the US DOT. The average airfare does
not include taxes or passenger facility charges
and represents one-half of a roundtrip ticket.
CAGR
Abbreviation for compounded annual growth rate,
or the average rate of growth per year over a
given time period.
DESTINATION AIRPORT
Any airport where the air traveler spends four
hours or more. This is the Federal Aviation
Administration definition.
DIVERSION
Passengers who do not use the local airport for
air travel, but instead use a competing airport to
originate the air portion of their trip.
ENPLANEMENT
A passenger boarding a commercial aircraft.
FAA
Acronym for the Federal Aviation Administration.
HUB
An airport used by an airline as a transfer point to
get passengers to their intended destination. It is
part of a hub and spoke model, where travelers
moving between airports not served by direct
flights change planes en route to their
destination. Also an airport classification system
used by the FAA (e.g., non-hub, small hub,
medium hub, and large hub.
INITIATED (ORIGIN) PASSENGERS
Origin and destination passengers who began
their trip from within the catchment area.
LOAD FACTOR
The percentage of airplane capacity that is used
by passengers.
LOCAL MARKET
The number of air travelers who travel between
two points via nonstop air service.
APPENDIX B. GLOSSARY
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
PAGE 34
MSA
Acronym for Metropolitan Statistical Area. MSAs
have at least one urban cluster with a population
of at least 50,000 plus adjacent territory that has
a high degree of social and economic integration
with the core as measured by commuting ties.
NARROW-BODY JET
A jet aircraft with a single aisle designed for
seating over 100 passengers.
NONSTOP FLIGHT
Air travel between two points without stopping at
an intermediate airport.
ONBOARD PASSENGERS
The number of passengers transported on one
flight segment.
ORIGIN AND DESTINATION (O&D)
PASSENGERS
Includes all originating and destination
passengers. In the context of this report, it
describes the passengers arriving and departing
an airport.
ORIGINATING AIRPORT
The airport used by an air traveler for the first
enplanement of a commercial air flight.
PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE
Fee imposed by airports of $1 to $4.50 on
enplaning passengers. The fees are used by
airports to fund FAA approved airport
improvement projects.
PAX
Abbreviation for passengers.
PDEW
Abbreviation for passengers daily each way.
POINT-TO-POINT
Nonstop service that does not stop at an airline’s
hub and whose primary purpose is to carry local
traffic rather than connecting traffic.
REFERRED PASSENGERS
Origin and destination passengers who began
their trip from outside the catchment area.
REGIONAL JET
A jet aircraft with a single aisle designed for
seating fewer than 100 passengers.
RETAINED PASSENGERS (RETENTION)
Passengers who use the local airport for air travel
instead of using a competing airport to originate
the air portion of their trip.
TRUE MARKET
Total number of air travelers, including those who
are using a competing airport, in the geographic
area served by COU. The true market estimate
includes the size of the total market and for
specific destinations.
TURBOPROP AIRCRAFT
A type of engine that uses a jet engine to turn a
propeller. Turboprops are often used on regional
and business aircraft because of their relative
efficiency at speeds slower than, and altitudes
lower than, those of a typical jet.
US DOT
Acronym for US Department of Transportation.
WIDE-BODY JET
A jet aircraft with two aisles designed for seating
greater than 175 passengers.
PA
SS
EN
GE
RD
EM
AN
DA
NA
LY
SIS
–C
OLU
MB
IAR
EG
ION
AL
AIR
PO
RT
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT
MEAD & HUNT, INC. ■ 152 GINGER HILL COURT ■ GLEN CARBON, IL 62034
618.656.2848 ■ [email protected] ■ WWW.MEADHUNT.COM